Bombay High Court

Shri. Prashant Nana Patil vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 January, 2023

Bench: Sandeep V. Marne

                                                                    15.1612.18-wp.docx


BASAVRAJ                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GURAPPA                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PATIL
Digitally signed by                    WRIT PETITION NO. 1612 OF 2018
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
PATIL
Date: 2023.02.01      Prashant Nana Patil                            ..... Petitioner
17:44:04 +0530

                            Vs.

                      Union of India & Ors.                          ..... Respondents


                      Mr. Subhash B. Desai for the Petitioner
                      Mrs. S. V. Bharucha a/w. Mr. Advait Sethna and Mr. A. A. Ansari for
                      the Respondent Union of India.


                                              CORAM:        S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                            SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : JANUARY 31, 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. Rule.

Rule is made returnable forthwith.

By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. The Petitioner was appointed as Constable/GD with Central

Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on or about 7 th October 2014. The

Petitioner was terminated from service on 28 th November 2016. The

representation filed by the Petitioner is dismissed. Aggrieved

thereby, the present Writ Petition.


                      3.    The learned Counsel for the Petitioner          submits that the


                      Basavraj                                                             1/6
                                             15.1612.18-wp.docx

Petitioner was appointed as a Constable after due selection process.

The Petitioner is terminated from service only on the ground that

the Petitioner had written "NO" in the verification form against the

column "whether the Petitioner was arrested, prosecuted, kept

under detention or bound down / fined, convicted by a court of law

for any offence". According to the learned counsel, a criminal case

filed against the Petitioner was compromised and the criminal

proceedings were quashed by the Division Bench of this Court at

Aurangabad on 7th October 2014. On 7th October 2014, the Petitioner

was appointed as a Constable. The verification form was filled in by

the Petitioner on 8th November 2014 and as the criminal case was

already quashed on the date the verification form was filled in, the

Petitioner had written "NO" against the column " whether the

Petitioner was arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound

down / fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence". The

learned counsel relies on the judgment of the apex court in the case

of Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar 2011

(4) SCC 644. The learned Counsel submits that in the case of

similarly situated employee the Respondents have taken a liberal

view and have reinstated him in service though the said employee

was also prosecuted and he had mentioned "NO" against the similar

column.

Basavraj                                                         2/6
                                              15.1612.18-wp.docx

4. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the

Petitioner has willfully made a wrong statement that he was not

prosecuted for the criminal case. The Petitioner was appointed in

the year 2014. The verification form was filled in and clause 12(a)

which mandated him to declare as to "whether the Petitioner was

arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down / fined,

convicted by a court of law for any offence", the Petitioner had said

"NO". Same was against the facts on record. The Respondents could

get the knowledge of the same after the police verification. The

Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, under letter dated 18 th January

2016 had informed that a case was lodged against the Petitioner on

16th January 2013 in respect of an incident that occurred on 10 th

January 2013 for the offence punishable under sections 325, 323,

504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As a wrong

statement was made, the Petitioner was rightly terminated from

service. Reliance is placed on Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. As a wrong

information was filled in, the Respondents were within their right to

terminate the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not confirmed in

service.

5. We have considered the submissions. It is not disputed that

Basavraj 3/6 15.1612.18-wp.docx

after following due process, the Petitioner was selected and

appointed as a Constable / GD with CRPF under order dated 7 th

October 2014. It appears that on or about 8th November 2014 the

Petitioner filled in Verification Form. Clause 12(a) of the

Verification Form is in bilingual. The same reads thus:

"12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down / fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred / disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination / selections, or debarred from taking any examination / rusticated by any university or any other education authority / Institutions?"

The Petitioner answered "NO" to this clause. It appears from

the record that the Petitioner was prosecuted for the offences

punishable under sections 325, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34

of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The charge-sheet was also filed. The matter appears to have

been compounded between the parties. Same is clear from the

judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.1165 of 2014 filed by the

Petitioner and others. In the said judgment, it was observed that the

offence registered against the Petitioners were not serious in nature.

Petitioner No.2 in the said Writ Petition (the Petitioner herein) was a

young boy at that time having no criminal antecedents and had been

selected as a constable to join CRPF. The said aspect was considered

by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad while quashing

Basavraj 4/6 15.1612.18-wp.docx

the proceedings.

7. The Apex Court, in the case of Commissioner of Police and

Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra) has observed that youth often

commit indiscretions, which are often condoned. It is true that in the

application form the respondent did not mention that he was

involved in a criminal case. Probably he did not mention this out of

fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. The

Court further observed that, it is not such a serious offence like

murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be

taken in the matter.

8. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case

of Sandeep Kumar (supra). In the present case also, the matter is

compounded between the parties.

9. It would further appear that the Respondents have applied

different yardstick to the Petitioner and other employee. In the case

of similarly situated employee Batti Lal Meena who had also scribed

"NO" in column 12(a) though the criminal case was registered

against him under sections 147, 323, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal

Code and he was acquitted. The Respondents set aside the

termination order and reinstated him in service.

Basavraj                                                           5/6
                                               15.1612.18-wp.docx

10. The matter is pending in this Court since the year 2017. The

pendency of the matter would not be held against the Petitioner.

11. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix in the matter, we are

inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and pass the following order:

a. The impugned order terminating the Petitioner from service is quashed and set aside.

b. The Respondents shall reinstate the Petitioner in service within one month.

c. The Petitioner will be entitled for the continuity in service, however, considering the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to grant back wages to the Petitioner.